w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v/s The State of Kerala Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- JOSEPH AND CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U01211KL1954PTC000507

Company & Directors' Information:- E R JOSEPH & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28920WB1955PTC022404

    B.A. No. 1607 of 2020

    Decided On, 20 March 2020

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V. SHIRCY

    For the Petitioner: Sribiju Antony Aloor, K.P. Prasanth, Vishnu Dileep, Shafin Ahammed, T.T. Hijas, S. Arunraj, Meenu Thampi, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1 & R2, Suman Chakravarthy, Sr. PP.



Judgment Text


1. The petitioner, the 1st accused in Crime 189 of 2011 of Kodenchery Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 110, 120B, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 302, 201, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 2 read with Section 6(2) of The Poisons Act, 1919, is before this Court with this application for regular bail.

2. The prosecution case in a brief outline is that this petitioner was married to Roy Thomas (now deceased) on 14.07.1997 and they resided together as husband and wife at his residence namely Ponnamattam House, Koodathayi, Thamarassery. Two children were born to them in the wedlock. On 30.09.2011 Roy Thomas was found lying in the toilet of the said house in an unconscious stage and from there he was immediately rushed to a hospital, where he was declared dead. FIR was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. at 21.00 hours on 30.09.2011 on the complainant of one Joseph a close relative of the deceased. Postmortem examination was conducted and it was revealed that he died due to Cyanide poisoning. The case was closed as a case of suicide. Later a complaint was lodged by Rojo Thomas, the brother of deceased, before the District Police Chief, Kozhikode on 20.06.2019.In the complaint, Rojo Thomas raised suspicion about the untimely and mysterious death of six persons in his family including his brother Roy Thomas, the deceased, his mother Annamma Thomas, father Tom Thomas, uncle Manchadiyil Mathew, close relative Sili Shaju and her 1 year old child Alfine Shaju. He raised suspicion about the mysterious circumstances in which the deaths occurred and suspected all the deaths as murders. On the basis of the complaint lodged, the District Police Chief Kozhikode had conducted primary enquiry and filed report before the Deputy Inspector General of Police Kannur Range, Kannur and re-opened the case. Thereafter, a Special Investigating Team investigated the case from 19.08.2019 which includes exhumation of the dead body and chemical examination of the remnants.

3. On investigation, it was revealed by the investigating agency that the death of Roy Thomas was due to cyanide poisoning by this petitioner who collected the same from the 2nd accused with whom she had illegal relationship. The 2nd accused had collected it from the 3rd accused engaged in jewellery works with whom he had close acquaintance and the 1st accused, the petitioner, had administered cyanide by mixing it with food and served to Roy Thomas, her husband with the intention to kill him and thus killed him by poisoning with definite motive. The relationship of the petitioner and the deceased was strained. She had illicit relations and was desirous of grabbing his family property. She also entertained a desire to marry a financially sound person with permanent job and income. Therefore, she carried out the gruesome act of killing him, is the prosecution case.

4. This petitioner was taken into custody on 05.10.2019. Now investigation has completed and charge sheet has been filed against the four accused before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-11, Thamarassery. Her earlier bail application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kozhikode.

5. Sri. B.A. Aloor, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in fact a civil dispute between this petitioner and the brother of deceased Roy Thomas had culminated in foisting this false case of cyanide poisoning by the 1st petitioner to her husband with the help of accused Nos. 2 and 3. In fact she is innocent but she has been falsely implicated in the case by the investigating agency. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she is languishing in jail for the last five months for no reason and hence,she is entitled to be released on bail is the stand taken by the learned counsel.

6. Sri. Suman Chakravarthy, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application and contended that though the investigation of the case is over and charge sheet has been filed against the accused and the case is pending as C.P. No. 1 of 2020 for committal proceedings, she is not entitled to be released on bail as custodial trial is absolutely necessary. It was also argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that apart from this case, she is the accused in five other cases in which she has been charged for murder of her close relatives by cyanide poisoning. The learned Public Prosecutor also stressed on the point that all the murders were committed in a very planned manner with crooked dedication, applying exact time interval and if she is released on bail, she will definitely influence and threaten the important witnesses and thus tamper with the evidence. It was also submitted that in the light of the peculiar circumstances, there exists no justifiable ground to grant bail to this petitioner.

7. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued for her release on bail mainly on four grounds, (i) as the investigation has been completed, further detention is not at all required. (ii) she is ready to co-operate with the trial of the case, (iii) she will not hamper the trial of the case in any manner, (iv) she will not endanger her life if enlarged on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner had even the audacity to submit that if she is released on bail, the first thing that she intends to do, is to seek for police protection, as though the police force has no other job. I am not sure whether the petitioner had instructed the learned counsel to make such a submission. The learned counsel relies on the decision in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and others (AIR 2018 SC 980) where it was observed that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. He also relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Shri. P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2019 SC 5272) to substantiate his case that she is entitled to be released on bail. In Chidambaram's case, the Apex Court has considered the jurisdiction to grant bail in paragraph No.22 which reads as follows:

“22. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail:- (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses;(iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondance; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations (vide Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and another (2001) 4 SCC 280::2001 ICI 222). There is no hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case and on its own merits. The discretion of the court has to be exercised judiciously and not in an arbitrary manner. At this stage itself, it is necessary for us to indicate that we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Solicitor General that “flight risk” of economic offenders should be looked at as a national phenomenon and be dealt with in that manner merely because certain other offenders have flown out of the country. The same cannot, in our view, be put in a straightjacket formula so as to deny bail to the one who is before the Court, due to the conduct of other offenders, if the person under consideration is otherwise entitled to bail on the merits of his own case. Hence, in our view, such consideration including as to :flight risk” is to be made on individual basis being uninfluenced by the unconnected cases, more so, when the personal liberty is involved.”

9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor to buttress his argument that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail though charge sheet has been filed, placed reliance on the decision in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [(2004) 7 SCC 528] where the Apex Court has set aside the order of the High Court concerned granting bail and observed in paragraph 14 as under:

“14. ...... In the impugned order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail.”

10. The learned Public Prosecutor further relies on the following decisions so as to argue that granting of bail in this case will be against the principle laid down by the Apex Court in cases where the gravity of the offences are severe and the possibility of the witnesses being tampered with, while on bail. [See State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21], Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its Director [(2007) 1 SCC 70] and Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala v. State of Gujarat [(2008) 3 SCC 775]]

The decision in Chandrakeshwar Prasad alias Chandu Babu v. State of Bihar [(2016) 9 SCC 443) is also relied on by the learned learned public prosecutor to assert his argument that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail during trial of the case where the settled position that applying discretion by the court in granting bail, must be in a judicious manner not as a matter of course, has reiterated.

11. The matters to be looked into by the court while considering grant of bail have again been reiterated by the Apex Court in Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [(2018) 12 SCC 129] and it has been further observed by the Apex Court in paragraph 29 as follows:

“29. In the present case, the trial is at a very crucial stage. The trial court is yet to record the testimony of material witnesses including the complainant as well as all the material witnesses. The trial has commenced and the trial is said to be posted for 4.12.2017. For ensuring the fair trial, witnesses must be in a position to freely depose without fear. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that a fair trial can be ensured only if the appellants are not enlarged on bail.”

12. As referred above, it is well settled by a catena of decisions that the discretionary power of the court in granting bail has to be exercised in a most judicious manner and there exists no straight jacket formula to allow or reject an application for bail. Whether,an accused is entitled for bail depends on so many important and relevant factors such as; the nature and gravity of the offence committed, the criminal antecedents of the accused,reasonable chance to flee from justice upsetting the trial of the case, apprehension of raising threat towards witnesses or influencing the witnesses, likelihood of the offence being repeated because of the criminal antecedents, the severity of the punishment etc. It is equally well settled that while considering a bail application, the court should not go into the details of the evidence meticulously and the other facts involved in the case as it is not relevant consideration and it may cause prejudice to the accused. Elaborate evaluation of each and every facts involved, on merits can not be taken into consideration at this stage and no doubt it is a matter for trial. But it is needless to say that while dealing with a bail application, a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of charge and involvement of the accused are the important and integral elements. Here, the materials collected by the investigating agency would indicate prima facie that a heinous crime was committed by the petitioner with the aid of the other accused and managed to conceal the same for years.

13. Of course, the investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed against the accused. In fact, 248 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution to prove the allegations against the petitioner as well the co-accused and to establish the prosecution case. Out of the 248 witnesses, some material witnesses are close relatives of the deceased and close relatives of this petitioner. The death of Roy Thomas was on 30.09.2011 and the case was re-opened in the year 2019 on the complaint of CW 2, the brother of the deceased. CW 1 is the sister of the deceased and CWs 3 and 4 are the children of the deceased and the 1st accused/petitioner. CW1 to 4 are material witness apart from the other material witnesses. CW3 is aged only 20 years and CW 4 is a minor aged only 15 years. The petitioner is none other than their own mother, having much influence and domination over them. They were residing together with the deceased and the petitioner at the time of the alleged incident. They have to depose freely before the trial court about the matters that transpired in the family before his death. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail there is every possibility of winning over or terrorizing them by her influence as the mother of her children. The mindset of the petitioner appears to be so,from the materials available before the court. To ensure a free and fair trial, definitely further custody of this petitioner appears to be inevitable. Since witness Nos. 3 and 4 are material witnesses of prosecution like CWs 1 and 2, they have to give evidence before the court without any kind of fear, pressure or influence from the side of the petitioner and that too with confidence to attain justice. Being the children of the petitioner/1st accused, there is every possibility to intimidate them or putting them under threat and if that be so, a fair trial will not be possible. Further more, some of the other witnesses cited by the prosecution are also immediate neighbors of the 1st petitioner while she was residing with the deceased in

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

Ponnamattom House, Koodathayi. Considering the peculiar nature of this case and circumstances involved they must able to depose the true and real facts before the court with out any pressure or influence or fear, for ensuring a fair trial, without any obstruction to justice. The apprehension expressed by the learned Public Prosecutor appears to be genuine, sound and reasonable considering the nature of the accusation levelled against this petitioner and the gravity of the offences alleged against her and the manner in which she committed the offence in this case as well in the other murder cases in which she is arraigned as the prime accused. 14. Deprivation of freedom by refusal of bail is of - course not for punitive purpose, but prima facie when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner had committed the offence and seriousness and the gravity of the offences alleged against her is quite obvious, while exercising the discretion in a judicious manner, this court can only reject her request to enlarge her on bail. In fact there are no circumstances justifying her release on bail, at this stage. She is the prime accused in five other murder cases. The deceased in all the cases were close relatives rather members of the very same family. Release of her on bail where charge is not even framed would shake the confidence of the public/ society in judicial system. To ensure a fair trial, I find that the discretion of this court cannot be exercised in favor of this petitioner, just considering the fact that she is a lady undergoing incarceration for the last more than five months. Dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

30-09-2020 Christopher Joseph O'neill Versus Andrew Bridgman & Others Court of Appeal of New Zealand
11-09-2020 M/s. Unicorn Maritimes (India) Private Limited., Represented by its Director Arul Augustin Joseph Chennai Versus Valency Internation Trading Pvt Limited., Represented by its Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 John Joseph, Advocate, Chairman Voters Alliance, Ernakulam Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
08-09-2020 Dr. Joseph Freeman Motha & Another Versus Sudha Vijayan & Another High Court of Kerala
19-08-2020 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi Versus Adv. Shiji Joseph & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2020 Jollyamma Joseph Versus State of Kerala Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
21-07-2020 G. Bhagavat Singh Versus Manoj Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
21-07-2020 Shoby Joseph & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Superintendent of Police, Crime No. 367 of 2019 of CB, Central Unit-IV, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
16-07-2020 Jai Joseph Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
15-07-2020 Manu Joseph Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
13-07-2020 Dr. K.J. Joseph & Others Versus The Mattathur Grama Panchayath, Thrissur, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
30-06-2020 Bilsy Joseph, now residing at 3743, Falkner Drive, United States of America, Represented by her Power of Attorney holder (Mother), Rosamma Joseph, Kottayam Versus Registrar of Births & Deaths, Changanassery Muncipality, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
19-06-2020 M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director Reethamma Joseph & Another Versus M/s. Venturetech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director N. Mal Reddy High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-05-2020 Joe Joseph Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Principal Secretary To Government, Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
04-05-2020 Jobin Joseph Versus Uma Thomas & Another High Court of Kerala
30-04-2020 United Nurses Association, Through Its State President Shoby Joseph, Thrissur Versus Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
28-04-2020 Kane Joseph Manoah Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
17-03-2020 K.T. Joseph & Another Versus Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
11-03-2020 Shyla @ Shymol Kamalasanan & Another Versus Joseph High Court of Kerala
11-03-2020 M/s. Logical Developers Private Limited, New Delhi, Represented by Its Authorized Signatory Jose Joseph, Kochi & Another Versus M/s. Muthoot Mini Financiers Private Limited, Pathanamthitta, Represented by Its Chairman & Managing Director Roy M. Mathew & Others High Court of Kerala
10-03-2020 Shail Jiju Versus Biju Joseph & Another High Court of Kerala
09-03-2020 V.Y. Thomas @ Sajimon Versus V.Y. Joseph High Court of Kerala
03-03-2020 Jet Airways (India) Ltd., represented by its Airport Manager Versus Thomas Joseph Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
28-02-2020 Sabu Joseph Versus Kerala State Election Commission, Represented by Its Secretary, State Election Commission Office, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
20-02-2020 General Manager, Hmt Machine Tools Ltd., Through Its Deputy General Manager (Hr) Shri Joseph Pradeep Keshri Minz, Ajmer (Raj) & Others Versus Controlling Authority, Under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 & Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ajmer (Raj) & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
20-02-2020 Lalu Joseph Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Proseucutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam for The Circle Inspector of Police, Nilambur High Court of Kerala
19-02-2020 Marthoma Syrian Church, Represented by Most Rev. Dr. Joseph, Marthoma Metropolitan, Thiruvalla & Others Versus Jessie Thampi (Died) & Others High Court of Kerala
19-02-2020 Joy Joseph Versus Desai Homes represented by V.R. Desai & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
13-02-2020 E. Arputhadhas Versus E. Joseph (Died) & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-02-2020 Tonymon Joseph Versus General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai & Others High Court of Kerala
31-01-2020 Kolli Venkata Mohana Rao & Another Versus Joseph Christian Krishnaraj (died) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-01-2020 J. Xavier Versus Joseph High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-01-2020 K. John & Others Versus John Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
14-01-2020 Joseph Yemmiganoor @ Kadakoti Versus State, Through Police Inspector & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
19-12-2019 Joseph Tajet Versus State of Kerala Represented by Chief Secretary To Government, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
12-12-2019 Nobby M. George, Changanassery Tlauk, Rep. by Power of Attorney holder his mother Alice George, Changanassery Versus Jossy Joseph, Kuttanad Taluk, Now Staying With Her Sister Raji Joseph, Erskine Court, Nanuet 10954, New York, USA High Court of Kerala
10-12-2019 Joseph Charles & Others Versus State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station-South, Madurai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-12-2019 P.T. Joseph, Proprietor, Cheryl Enterprises, Elamakkara, Ernakulam Versus Kabeer Husain Minanna & Others High Court of Kerala
28-11-2019 Joseph Mathai @ Jose Versus State of Kerala, Thiruvampady Police Station, Crime No.199/07 High Court of Kerala
28-11-2019 M. Jeyamary Versus M. Joseph Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-11-2019 Deepa Rachal George Versus Sherin Annie Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
14-11-2019 Rev. Fr. L. Joseph Paulraj Versus St. Mary's Cathedral Trust Rep. by its Secretary-cum-Treasurer Rev. Fr. Devaraj & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-11-2019 Joseph Antony Gerard Versus J.L. Malarvizhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-10-2019 IC 29547 L Bobby Joseph Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
26-09-2019 Priya Versus Biju Joseph High Court of Kerala
19-09-2019 M.M. Joseph Versus Yoonus & Others High Court of Kerala
19-09-2019 M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Egmore, Chennai, Represented by Chief Manager, Stephen Joseph, Kochi Versus Joseph Mohanan & Another High Court of Kerala
17-09-2019 Alwin Joseph Versus The Superintendent of Police, Erode & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-09-2019 Sushil Joseph Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II (Authority under the Payment of Wages Act) Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-08-2019 Paul Joseph Shirole & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-08-2019 B.S. Shabana Versus Kevin Joseph Selvadoray High Court of Karnataka
22-08-2019 State of Kerala, Represented by deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Law), State Goods & Service Tax Department, Ernakulam Versus Raphel T. Joseph High Court of Kerala
21-08-2019 M/s Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd., V.H. Kammath Towers, Kadathy, Muvattupuzha Versus James K. Joseph & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
09-08-2019 Charly Joseph Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary, Industries Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
09-08-2019 Joseph Thomas @ Jose & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
30-07-2019 Sijo Joseph Versus The Transport Commissioner, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
29-07-2019 Geemol Joseph, Represented by her Power of Attorney holder Losan Joseph Versus Kousthabhan & Another High Court of Kerala
19-06-2019 Joseph Thomas @ Thampi Kannanthanam & Others Versus Molly George @ Molamma High Court of Kerala
14-06-2019 C. Joseph Versus The District Collector, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-06-2019 V.M. Joseph Versus Kadanad Grama Panchayath, Represented by Its Secretary, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
11-06-2019 Clarence Joseph Bhengra Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
07-06-2019 L'Oratoire Saint-Joseph du Mont-Royal Versus J.J Supreme Court of Canada
30-05-2019 D.B. Jatti & Another Versus Kambam Sudhir Joseph Reddy & Another High Court of Karnataka
30-05-2019 Thresiamma Manshoven Versus Manshoven Jacques Joseph High Court of Kerala
29-05-2019 Asha, Rep. by the Power of Attorney Holder Jonh D'cruz Versus P.K. Joseph & Another High Court of Kerala
02-05-2019 Lydia Agnes Rodrigues (Since deceased) through her legal heirs & Others Versus Joseph Anthony D'Cunha & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-04-2019 Viji Joseph & Another Versus P. Chander & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-04-2019 Management of St. Joseph of Cluny Montessori School, Pondicherry Versus The Director of School Education, Government of Pondicherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-04-2019 Joseph Santhosh Kottarathil Alexander & Others Versus The Superintendent of Customs (Aiu), Cochin International Airport, Nedumbassery, Kochi & Others High Court of Kerala
29-03-2019 Joseph Peter & Others Versus Elizabath Manuel & Others High Court of Kerala
25-03-2019 Commissioner, West Arni Panchayat Union, Thiruvannamalai Versus St. Joseph Social Welfare Centre, Rep by Brother & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-03-2019 Joseph Saldhana Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by the Deputy Commissioner & Others High Court of Karnataka
08-03-2019 K.A. Joseph Versus The District Collector, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
07-03-2019 Sebastian Joseph Versus The Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai Others High Court of Kerala
06-03-2019 James Joseph Murren as Trustee of the James J Murren Spendthrift Trust & Daniel Lee Versus Glenn Schaeffer Court of Appeal of New Zealand
27-02-2019 Tushar Versus Internal Complaints Committee Christ University, Rep. by its Presiding Officer Dr. Mayamma Joseph & Others High Court of Karnataka
22-02-2019 Shali Joseph & Another Versus S.K. Sasikumar High Court of Kerala
19-02-2019 P.B. Dineshan Pillai Versus Joseph @ Jose High Court of Kerala
18-02-2019 Joseph Versus State of Karnataka & Others High Court of Karnataka
13-02-2019 HDB Financial Services Limited, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Legal Officer (Kerala) & Authorized Officer, A.C. Pratheesh Versus M/s. Kings Baker Private Limited, Kottayam, Represented by Its Proprietor, Tom.P. Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
08-02-2019 Malabar Granites, Palakkad, Represented by Its Managing Partner, M.K. Joseph Versus The Secretary , Koppam Grama Panchayat, Palakkad & Others High Court of Kerala
31-01-2019 Sami Labs Limited Versus M.V. Joseph High Court of Karnataka
29-01-2019 P. Santhosh Joseph & Another Versus The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Dept., Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-01-2019 Malabar Granites, Represented by Its Managing Partner, M.K. Joseph Versus The Secretary, Koppam Grama Panchayat & Others High Court of Kerala
24-01-2019 Thomas Joseph Versus Caculo Automotive Pvt. Ltd. & Another Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panaji
24-01-2019 The Commercial Tax Officer, Changanassery & Others Versus M/s. Hotel Breezeland Ltd., Changanassery, Represented by Its Managing Director Joseph Cherian & Another High Court of Kerala
23-01-2019 M/s. Sanjose Parish Hospital, Represented by its Director, Rev. Fr. Joseph (Noby) Ambookan & Others Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Chavakkad, Thrissur & Others High Court of Kerala
22-01-2019 Joseph A. Kennedy Versus Bremerton School District (2019) Supreme Court of United States
22-01-2019 Joseph A. Kennedy Versus Bremerton School District(2019) Supreme Court of United States
18-01-2019 M/s. Sanjose Parish Hospital, Thrissur, Represented by Its Director, Rev. Fr. Joseph (Noby) Ambookan & Others Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Thrissur & Others High Court of Kerala
14-01-2019 Joseph Velivil Versus Nucleus Premium Properties Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director Nishad N.P, Ventura Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
11-01-2019 Suo Motu, K. Ani Joseph & Others Versus State of Kerala & Another High Court of Kerala
11-01-2019 Joseph George & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Chief Secretary, State Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
03-01-2019 The Assistant General Manager & Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India Consortium, Ernakulam Main Branch Versus The Dewa Investors Association, Ernakulam, Represented By Its President Prince Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
19-12-2018 The Refugee Appeal Board of South Africa & Others Versus Paul Joseph Mutombo Mukungubila Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
14-12-2018 Suriyur Vivasayigal Pathukappu Sangam, Rep. by its President, T. Ramaraj, Trichy Versus LA Bottlers Private Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Joseph Francis, Thiruchirappalli & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-12-2018 Stella Joseph & Another Versus The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Kerala
13-12-2018 K.A. Joseph, Kannur District & Another Versus South Indian Bank Ltd, Kannur & Another Debts Recovery Tribunal Ernakulam
29-11-2018 Alphonsa Joseph and Others V/S Anand Joseph High Court of Kerala Ernakulam Bench
30-10-2018 Tomy Joseph Versus Smitha Tomy High Court of Kerala